and many more benefits!

GMAT Club Timer Informer

Hi GMATClubber!

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

Developed countries around the world have pledged to reduce global car
[#permalink]

Show Tags

Updated on: 16 Sep 2018, 06:18

4

27

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

34%(02:30) correct 66%(02:40) wrong based on 1073 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Developed countries around the world have pledged to reduce global carbon emissions to half their 1990 levels by 2050. Taking into account these countries' plans for emissions reduction, countries in the developing world would need to cut emissions by 23%. However, this goal will translate into a much greater per-capita requirement on people in the developing world. This is because their populations are still growing, increasing the energy and resources needed in coming years.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) Industrial plants are one of the prime targets for emissions reductions, and most global industrial production takes place in developed nations.

(B) On a per-capita basis, emissions from countries in the developing world are less than one-tenth those from developed countries.

(C) A handful of developing nations committed to emissions reduction targets equal or greater than those of developed nations.

(D) In developing nations, emissions levels are more heavily dependent on the activities of a small ruling class.

(E) By 2050, many countries in the developing world are expected to have undergone drastic economic transformation such that they will resemble more closely developed nations than developing ones.

Re: Developed countries around the world have pledged to reduce global car
[#permalink]

Show Tags

03 Oct 2013, 07:17

4

1

Official Explanation

Answer: B This is a strengthen question. It is similar, however, to an explanation, as the argument contains an apparent paradox. Developed countries will cut emissions by 50%, developing countries by 23%, but the 23% cuts will be more demanding on a per-capita basis. The evidence given is that developing countries will need more resources to continue growing. Presumably, developed nations will not need their resource consumption to grow at the same rate. Consider each choice:

(A) This choice describes one target of emissions cuts, but in developed nations. It doesn't explain why developingnations will be hit harder. (B) This is correct. If emissions in developing countries start at so low a point, they would need to grow very rapidly to get anywhere close to the level of developed nations. As the resource demands in those countries grow, any cut at all--let alone 23%--in emissions would be a great burden. (C) This choice distinguishes some developing nations from other developing nations. The contrast we're concerned with is developing vs. developed nations. (D) This may be true, but it doesn't tell us why emissions cuts would be so muchmore harmful. If anything, it may mean the cuts would be less harmful, as they would disproportionately touch the ruling class. (E) This is something that is partly assumed by the argument, but without additional information (in the form of details regarding emissions levels, as in (B)) it doesn't strengthen the argument.

General Discussion

Re: Developed countries around the world have pledged to reduce global car
[#permalink]

Show Tags

27 Dec 2014, 03:54

HI Avohden, I am still not clear why the answer is B. Please could you help me.

I chose the answer C.

avohden wrote:

Official Explanation

Answer: B This is a strengthen question. It is similar, however, to an explanation, as the argument contains an apparent paradox. Developed countries will cut emissions by 50%, developing countries by 23%, but the 23% cuts will be more demanding on a per-capita basis. The evidence given is that developing countries will need more resources to continue growing. Presumably, developed nations will not need their resource consumption to grow at the same rate. Consider each choice:

(A) This choice describes one target of emissions cuts, but in developed nations. It doesn't explain why developingnations will be hit harder. (B) This is correct. If emissions in developing countries start at so low a point, they would need to grow very rapidly to get anywhere close to the level of developed nations. As the resource demands in those countries grow, any cut at all--let alone 23%--in emissions would be a great burden. (C) This choice distinguishes some developing nations from other developing nations. The contrast we're concerned with is developing vs. developed nations. (D) This may be true, but it doesn't tell us why emissions cuts would be so muchmore harmful. If anything, it may mean the cuts would be less harmful, as they would disproportionately touch the ruling class. (E) This is something that is partly assumed by the argument, but without additional information (in the form of details regarding emissions levels, as in (B)) it doesn't strengthen the argument.

Re: Developed countries around the world have pledged to reduce global car
[#permalink]

Show Tags

27 Dec 2014, 11:09

2

2

Hey there shriramvelamuri – I didn’t write the question or the answer so the following is IMHO.

According to Mike McGarry at Magoosh there are 4 ways to strengthen a question.A. Strengthen the premises: either provide direct support to one of the premises of the argument, or add new premises that independently support the conclusionB. Strengthen the assumption: directly affirm the truth of an assumption of the argument, or provide evidence or support for an assumption.C. Strengthen the conclusion: provide some kind of alternate support of, direct measurement of, or independent confirmation of the conclusionD. Weaken an objection: use any of the weakening techniques on an implicit or explicit objection to the argument.

I think B is correct because it strengthens an assumption. I believe the conclusion is the following sentence: “However, this goal will translate into a much greater per-capita requirement on people in the developing world.”

Although the conclusion sentence does begin with a conclusion indicator word such as therefore, so, or thus it summarizes the conclusion of the argument. The word “however” sounds like it’s trying to confuse the reader.

So when I read the conclusion without the however I am thinking what is being assumed to make that conclusion. Please note that I think the use of “per-capita” is also trying to confuse you. You can substitute “percentage decline” instead.

While I read the question certain things come to mind in terms of assumptions. I’m just brainstorming right now.

Developed countries probably have more total emissions than developing countries. Developed countries have more infrastructure and energy requirements which are consistent with a higher standard of living. Developed countries have a lower population growth than developing countries. Think Western Europe and Japan where their populations are actually declining. Using these assumptions as I look at the questions I see that answer B restates my first sentence. It affirms my assumption and actually provided evidence. “Developed countries probably have more total emissions than developing countries”. Personally I can’t quantify the amount but answer B did for me.

I try and quantification of the amount of emissions output.

Assume emissions from developed countries is 1,000,000 and emissions from developing is 100,000. We know that developed countries are going to cut emissions but 50% and developing countries by 23%. But we are assuming that the population in developing countries is growing faster than developed countries. As countries develop their energy requirements and emissions is greater than its population growth.

Assume the following: Emissions 100,000 and population 100,000 at 2010. Population growth 10% and emissions growth 15% for the next 40 years. Let’s round 23% to 25%, therefore emissions will be cut to 75,000 by 2050. But assuming emissions growth, the emissions output will be approx. 202,000. So the actual emissions reduction is 63% not 23%.

Re: Developed countries around the world have pledged to reduce global car
[#permalink]

Show Tags

30 Dec 2015, 03:29

1

Answer: (B)

A - out of scopeB - say developed countries use energy units 100 per capita. They will reduce it to 50. If developing countries use 1/10th, i.e. 10 units per capita and cut it to ~8 (23% reduction), that means the'll still be using far less than developed countries' per capita use. This is a greater penalty. STRENGTHENS.C - A handful might have decided to increase commitment, but it may or may not have per capita impact overall, depending on their relative size of commitment. insufficient data to strengthen/weaken.D - tempting. logically, this is true, but does it have any bearing on the impact from reductions? either way, their per-capita consumption is going down. this fact of developing into developed nations is incidental but that couldn't be the main reason to say that impact on them would be greater. if developing countries turn to developed ones, and increase per-capita use by 1000%, say, the impact is less. but if they stay at current levels, impact is more.

Note that here, we are talking about impact in REAL terms, and not in percentage terms.
_________________

Re: Developed countries around the world have pledged to reduce global car
[#permalink]

Show Tags

10 Oct 2016, 12:04

souvik101990 wrote:

Developed countries around the world have pledged to reduce global carbon emissions to half their 1990 levels by 2050. Taking into account these countries' plans for emissions reduction, countries in the developing world would need to cut emissions by 23%. However, this goal will translate into a much greater per-capita requirement on people in the developing world. This is because their populations are still growing, increasing the energy and resources needed in coming years.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

A. Industrial plants are one of the prime targets for emissions reductions, and most global industrial production takes place in developed nations.

B. On a per-capita basis, emissions from countries in the developing world are less than one-tenth those from developed countries.

C. A handful of developing nations committed to emissions reduction targets equal or greater than those of developed nations.

D. In developing nations, emissions levels are more heavily dependent on the activities of a small ruling class.

E. By 2050, many countries in the developing world are expected to have undergone drastic economic transformation such that they will resemble more closely developed nations than developing ones.

" this goal will translate into a much greater per-capita requirement on people in the developing world"

than what? than on people from developed countries? or than 23% ?

We do not know whether the population in developed countries is still growing.

Anyway, the per-capita reduction requirement on people in the developed world would be 50% or more, and the per-capita reduction requirement on people in the developing world would be more than 23%. If the comparison is between developed countries and developing countries it seems that the per- capita requirement is greater in the developed countries. In addition, we do know the actual carbon emissions emitted by either group. Therefore, the argument would be flawed.

If the comparison is between the 23% estimate and the actual requirements, then the argument is valid -" this goal will translate into a much greater per-capita requirement on people in the developing world"- but none of the answers would have any effect on the conclusion.
_________________

Re: Developed countries around the world have pledged to reduce global car
[#permalink]

Show Tags

11 Apr 2017, 10:39

Aketa wrote:

hello experts,

could you please explain why b is right and c is wrong ?

Developed countries around the world have pledged to reduce global carbon emissions to half their 1990 levels by 2050.Taking into account these countries' plans for emissions reduction, countries in the developing world would need to cutemissions by 23%. However, this goal will translate into a much greater per-capita requirement on people in the developing world. This is because their populations are still growing, increasing the energy and resources needed in coming years.

The bold text above is your conclusion. It means although developing countries need to cut by only 23% , it will lead to a greater per capita requirement on people to cut emissions.The underlying assumption is that the emission levels of developing countries are less then that of the developed countries.Thereby requiring more per capita cut on emissions.Based on this evaluate the answer choices. B is a clear winner here. C on the other hand is irrelevant to our argument because we are concerned with all of developing nations ,not just a coupe of them. even If a bunch of developing nations cut off more what about the other nations ?

Re: Developed countries around the world have pledged to reduce global car
[#permalink]

Show Tags

11 Apr 2017, 16:10

I think C is incorrect because

1/ it contradicts with the argument. Clearly, developing countries will cut emissions by 23%, but C says some developing countries will targets greater than developed countries. 2/ targets equal of greater than those of developed countries is not similar to "per capita" targets